Jared Diamond, the author of the two very interesting books "Guns, Germs and Steel" and, more recently, "Collapse", has an interesting column in yesterday's New York Times. By his estimation, individuals in the developed world (about 1 billion people) consume resources about 32 times faster than those in the developed world (about 5.5 billion). That means developed nations consume about 85% of total world (human) consumption. This gap is too wide. In our electronic age, most everyone knows how big the gap is, and the knowledge creates jealously and friction. It fills our newspapers with frustration and violence all over the developing world.

Despite the staggering difference in consumption levels, Jared is cautiously optimistic. He feels the developed countries will realize that high consumption rates are not directly required to live a comfortable life. He mentions Europe as an example. Use of petro-fuels there is about half as much as in the U.S. yet their quality of life is the same or better than our own. He feels our consumtpion rates can and will drop so that there is a smaller gap. Rates in the developing countries, notably China and India are rising already. Of course, all this has to be done while dropping our world carbon footprint enough to keep our climates from getting too warm. This is the challenge we must all face in the next decade or so. Are your ready?

[Source: NYT]

Jared Diamond's Consumption Factor Challenge originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:56:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

On October 22, 2007, Newsweek columnist George Will wrote his column entitled "An Inconvenient Price." He was dissecting a new book by economist Bjorn Lomborg entitled "Cool It - The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming. Based on that column, I got the book and have spent the intervening months reading it. Mr. Lomborg is a very lucid economist but I don't find his writing all that easy to follow. I need to visualize informaation and the are no graphs or tables in the book. In other words, this is a serious read. That's OK. The main point so far is that cooling global warming is an objective among several other worthy objectives. Lomborg says we shouldn't sacrifice the world economy for global warming without considering the negative impacts (aka suffering) it will create. His case is compelling but I am not fully convinced. He does point out how alarmists have been exploiting recent weather changes. Higher world temperature are likely to be caused by warmer night and winters rather than higher summer peak temperatures. I will have to keep reading.

Lomborg writes like he has been out to the year 2100 and returned to tell us what is out there. I would prefer he just go out to 2020. There are just many too societal interactions and too much time between now and then - 93 years. Would anyone trust predictions from 1907 about how life would be in the year 2000? I wouldn't bank on it.

I am more concerned about the next 12 years because that is when you and I, dear ABG reader, will have our biggest influence on the present and future. Will we be driving fuel cell vehicles or hybrids or walking in 2020? Judging from how many 1995 vehicles are still on the roads of the US (probably more than all our Toyota Priuses) there are still going to be millions of 2008 models looking for a fill up. If you remember 1995, you can probably think as far out as 2020. Beyond that, things get pretty cloudy for me.

A view of the 21st Century: Bjorn Lomborg's "Cool It" originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:11:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Carpooling is a great way to cut your carbon footprint. Throw another warm body in your car and you halve your carbon emissions per person. You also halve the amount of traffic you create if previously have both gone SOV (single occupancy vehicle). It is also a great way to justify your SUV. A commuting SOSUV is about the worst single thing you can do for the environment, the energy shortage and local traffic conditions (sorry to harp on that but its the truth, folks).

I carpooled in the 1980s. Same working hours from the same neighborhood to the same destination and back. Is it as convenient as driving your own vehicle? No. Do you lose that precious privacy SOV use allows? Yes. But do you save money? Oh boy, do you! Do you gain some lively conversation and gossip time? Ditto. Carpooling is a social good and a chance to discuss the events of the days - sports, politics, kids, whatever. Why it might almost be as good as Rush Limbaugh or Imus in the Morning!

One advantage 21st Century car pooling has over prior years - cell phones. No one is incommunicado. You can adjust departure and arrival times down to the minute. Another advantage: MP3 players. Passengers can plug in their ears and "opt out" of any on-going discussion. One item that needs further attention, however, is insurance coverage.

So, if you want to put about $20 extra dollars (about 6 gallons) a week back in your wallet instead of giving them to the Canadians, Mexicans or OPEC, find someone willing to car pool with you. Twenty dollars a week adds up to about $1,000 a year for each of you. Also means less service cost for your car, extending its life and value.

Carpooling + Cell Phones + MP3 Players = Perfect Together!!

(Thanks to Tom P)

21st Century carpooling: nearing perfection? originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:54:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Greenbacks! That is the other green. How much have Americans paid to move themselves around in 2007 vs. prior years? Well the Energy Information Administration monitors fuel prices all over the country to tell us. Money, as you know, is convertible into all kinds of things. We can turn it into food, housing, clothing, fun or mobility. Many families are finding they are spending more on mobility and hence have less left for those other necessities. Our memories are not so short that we haven't forgotten Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, et al., when average national gas prices peaked at almost $3.10 a gallon. But then they dropped back to $2.20 a gallon in the winter of 2005-6. Almost the same thing happened in 2006-7. But look at the curve for 2007 - 8. No drop. We are still at $3 a gallon. This is what makes the Teslas, Apteras, and Brammo bikes or the biofuels and plug-in hybrids you read about on ABG so interesting. How can we convert our dollars into mobility at a reasonable and sustainable total cost?

If someone really needs an SUV, they should by all means get one. Let them take it to the hills or to their favorite fishing spot. But if not, leave them on the showroom floor or on the used SUV dealers lot. When it costs $40 to fill up even a small car's gas tank, many people feel pity (or contempt) for the 50 million or so SUV owners. Because so much of the fuel we are burning is imported (almost 2/3rds), we are exporting our hard earned greenbacks to OPEC and other oil producing nations. We burn up the petroleum in a few days but the dollars stay in their bank accounts to be invested however they see fit. If they invest wisely, they can be set for generations, even when their petroleum is gone.

Before there are enough Teslas and Apteras, biofuels and plug-in EV stations to make an impact on global warming and local emissions, we need to change the way we use our current vehicles. That is also a vital part of being green.

The Other Green originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 10:02:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

An 800 lb gorilla. That is what our own Al Gore called the U.S. while at the UN Climate Change meeting. Now, I know Al Gore is not a big hero with everyone who reads this website, but I respect his honesty. All the Chevy Volts and Opel Flexstreams, Segways and Vectrix vehicles won't look so good in the driveway IF the driveway is under water, in a fire-ravaged region of the country, or if the owner of said driveway is unemployed. The simple truth is we can't wait until 200 million hybrids/EVs/fuel cell vehicles appear to start reducing our carbon footprint. That will take about 20 years! We have to start NOW, right here in 2007. Or, at the latest, in 2008.

I am half transportation enthusiast and half energy/environment enthusiast. I enjoy driving when I do drive, but I do so as as little as possible. The U.S. uses 21 million barrels of oil a day - more than any other nation by far - and we are hoping the rest of the world will cut back on their global warming production rate so we can keep driving like there is an infinite oil supply! That is what our policy has been - protecting our old industry economy while other nations aggressively embrace new technologies. Maybe that is why the Japanese make the best hybrids, the Danes make the best windmills, and I don't know who makes the best photovoltaics. Is it the U.S.? Hope so. Others are taking the lead in new energy technologies while we resist change as the Congress did by not adopting a Renewable Fuel Standard in the new energy law.

Remember that pollution is a local problem but global warming and peak oil are global problems. Al Gore sees this but most of us don't want to admit it. Of course Al and the IPCC could be wrong - scientists have been wrong before. Even if they are, is it so bad to cut back a few hundred gallons of oil this year? Or to buy a car that only weighs 1.5 tons instead of 2 or 3 tons?

So, if you get up in the morning and the face staring back has a few more simian traits than it had previously, check the vehicle on the driveway. Is it parked or moored?

On Being An 800 lb Gorilla originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:38:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

I attended a luncheon where Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO of the Association of American Manufacturers, Inc (AIAM) was the speaker. AIAM represents 14 firms who import and/or build vehicles in the U.S. The biggest, by far, are Toyota, Honda and Nissan, followed by Subaru, Kia, Hyundai and several others, including Ferrari. As Stanton stated, "Our member firms produce 31 percent of the vehicles made in the US and 40 percent of those sold." Stanton acknowledged that the new law will raise fuel economy standards to 35 MPG by 2020 which will decrease CO₂ emissions compared to current (that is, 32 year old) legislation. Sadly though, if signing the Energy Bill was a victory and something to celebrate, that celebration is mainly happening in Detroit and Farm Belt corporate offices. It will also resound in the executive suites of OPEC member nations.

Mr. Stanton's celebratory comments extended to the EPA decision to not grant the California CO₂ waiver. The AIAM is apparently satisfied with some CO₂ reduction but not too much. He raised the canard that it is not good business to have two U.S. standards for fuel economy. However, he did not mention that AIAM is already busily responding to EU and Asian fuel efficiency standards or that, if there is to be one US standard, why not choose the tighter one - the California standard that 16 other states have already agreed to accept - worth about 43 MPG by 2016? (Actually, the info packets distributed included a comment that 95 percent of the vehicles made by AIAM members already meet current CA standards.) Or, since CO₂ is a world-wide problem, why not combine all the various continental standards into one global standard so that no nation's drivers overly burden the world's atmosphere. After all, we all share the same air. Finally, if we cease meeting different national standards, the combined engineering power should be able to reach a very high but reasonable efficiency standard.

I still think that driving is mainly about getting somewhere comfortably using the fewest resources. Improving fuel economy seems to be a wise investment in keeping the US auto industry alive. If we make them for a world market who knows, maybe we could export a few?

No Joy in Mudville originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:09:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

To be sure, we need U.S. and ExxonMobil oil production - I use about four gallons a week myself - and I credit the geologists and petroleum engineers of the world for getting it to us. After all, we need it to keep ourselves moving while we transition to the vehicles you read about here on ABG and their non-petroleum energy sources - biofuels, hydrogen, renewable electricity, plus the alternate lifestyles global warming will require - more biking, walking, telecommuting, etc. The point is we can't live a 21st century life using 20th century habits, not if we want to remain a strong and free society.

The advertorial is meant to attack the U.S. policy of keeping certain energy resources "off limits" to current exploration and production. While tempting, isn't it best that we sip rather than slurp up the last of our remaining petroleum sources? After all, once we use it all up and we are not done transitioning, what do we do then? Turn all our petroleum-dependent vehicles into horse drawn buggies or large planters? Our oil has to last till about 2050. That is a stretch.

Oh, Thank You, Thank You ExxonMobil!! originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:25:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Gas rationing did reduce the amount of driving during the Second World War but there were a lot of holes in the system. Gas rationing of a sort occurred 31 years later during the 1973 Energy Crisis (limited sales to each customer) and then about 8 years later during the Iran Crisis (odd-even gas rationing). Again, Americans just sucked it up and generally complied until the emergency was over. Now, in late 2007, we have been at war (in Iraq and Afghanistan) for nearly 5 years but we haven't really had to sacrifice anything for the war effort. Will gas rationing ever be needed again in the US? Will Americans used to unlimited travel on the interstate highway system and long daily commutes be able to adjust? Our grandparents did. It happened 65 years ago, and . . . You Are There!

U.S. gas rationing 65 years ago ... and you are there originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:49:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Diesel fuel is a small market next to gasoline - only 40 Billion gallons a year or thereabouts compared to about 140 Billion gallons. Still 40 Billion is nothing to laugh at. Biofuels production in the U.S. is still under one billion gals/year. In all of Europe it is 1.4 billion gallons. To ramp up production may cause as much disturbance in soy and other oil-rich crops as ethanol has caused in corn and other food prices. But algae, well that's another story. It grows where and when people don't want it. It is part of nature's system of reprocessing chemicals in water and air, powered by sunlight. Algae grows very quickly and, like all plants, it eats CO₂.

I am not a biologist. The information on algae biodiesel is available in the Nov. 3 issue of BusinessWeek's What's Next section. One venture firm is Imperium Renewables of Seattle, which readers will likely be familiar with. Investments and research are now underway to get to the most commercially viable production system and to get that system up to sufficient size. What strain of algae is most productive and resilient? Which is easiest to process to biofuel?

A production rate of 8 billion gallons a year would allow every US gallon of diesel fuel to be B20 biodiesel. I just hope we get the algae to work with us. What if the best kind of algae for biofuel smells like skunk? Or eats thru piping? Or is toxic to the touch? We'll have to go to the near future to find out.

[Source: BusinessWeek]

Back to "Back to the Future" originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:23:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

AutoblogGreen is about keeping a self-selected group of auto enthusiasts informed about the latest advances in green auto technologies. We are the early adopters, the best-informed among our friends, the trend setters. But, in the great scheme of things, we are too few. In the great battle (and that is what it is) for the remaining petroleum resources in the world, we are small change. What is needed is a much larger group of people who think it is important to be green now, and to self-ration fuel now.

For example, a Hummer uses about 1,000 gallons to drive 12,000 miles. That is enough to give three Priuses (or similar) 12,000 miles of travel each. Even if you can afford the gasoline at the likely price of $4 a gallon in 2008 ($4,000) the fuel is gone and the CO₂ generated.

What can the great American public do with its existing fleet of vehicles to save fuel? We can drive a little less. Combine trips. Save up some fuel for the special trip to Aunt Bessie, by cutting down trips elsewhere. Does it sound like an energy diet? It is.

Un-American you say? Not so, dear reader. The tale of the tape, according the U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration, is that we have done it all before. Using numbers rounded to the nearest 100 miles, the average US car was driven 10,000 miles in 1970. In 1980, during the Iran Hostage Crisis, it was down to 8,800 - a 12 percent decrease. In 1990, we were up to 10,500 miles and in 2000 we were at 12,000 miles. In 2004, the number was 12,500. It might be 13,000 for 2007.

Cutting U.S. average miles 12 percent would mean cutting back . . . to about 11,500 miles - still a substantial distance. But we need 200 million drivers to think "Is this trip really necessary?" before they turn the ignition key. Doing so would mean an unexpected fuel glut for several months causing lower prices at the pump and easing pressure on our rapidly weakening dollar.

It will take more than a decade to substantially replace the U.S. auto fleet with the technology you read about on AutoblogGreen. While that is going on, we have to cope with our current energy situation. Let's keep the Happy in Happy Thanksgiving.

Is this trip really necessary? originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:27:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

I was a full-time Alt Fuel technology consultant/researcher back in the 1990s. Among my fellow wizards, the PNGV was a big deal. We attended conferences every year or so and watched the Big 3, with federal funding, develop hybrid cars that could meet an 80 MPG target number. They were getting close. The Japanese firms were worried and started their own hybrid projects "just in case." And then the US project ended and the Big 3 put their hybrids under wraps and went about selling more SUVs. As I recall, the DOE even closed down the PNGV portion of their website, so all that data and knowledge was taken out of electronic circulation! I am still angry about that.

There is a story to be told here and the November 5 issue of the New Yorker tells it in "Running on Fumes," a book review by Elizabeth Kolbert. As this post is a review of a review, it would be improper to go into too many details but details there are in the review and the book written by Iain Carson and Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran, authors of "Zoom: The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future."

I was excited by those US PNGV hybrids and disappointed when they went nowhere. I wonder if any of that ~$7 billion taxpayer funded effort's technology went into the slowly arriving US hybrids now available. This was around the same time when GM was also trying and then killing the all electric EV1 car. For a few years, the new buzz was fuel cell vehicles and a new Big 3 project began. Now that that has cooled, GM is promising the Volt - a range extender hybrid based on lithium ion technology that wasn't feasible back in the 1990s.

I am glad Mssrs. Carson and Vaitheeswaren chose to write this book and that the New Yorker/Ms. Kolbert chose to review it. Detroit has to live with and learn from its decisions. So do the rest of us.

Remembering Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The NYTimes has published another of those articles about the IPCC saying that we - the US and China especially - have got to do something about global warming by 2012 or the penalties for our inaction will greatly exceed the costs of our taking action as individuals and nations, changing our personal and national lifestyles. President Bush has joined the chorus of national leaders because his opposition to the Kyoto Accords up to now has been the fact that it gave developing countries a free ride, placing the burden on developed countries only. That is no longer so.

I tend to agree with scientists though I don't trust their predictions totally. 2012 could be 2008 or 2019 for all I know. It could be 2005. But it is growing harder and harder to find credible scientists or politicians who will strongly dispute Global Warming (but Sen. Inhofe still appears in the media).

What does all this have to do with you, dear reader? Well, by your reading this far you are part of the technically savvy, younger, educated demographic. You are the early adopters, the trend setters, the persons others ask about their personal transportation decisions. After all, this is AutoblogGreen. In my case, thinking and acting green is not a hobby or a sideline, it is what I have been doing since 1980.

Back in the 1980s or 1990s, there was a TV ad featuring an experienced auto technician. His refrain about auto maintenance was pretty clear: "You can pay me now (to maintain your car properly), or you can pay me later (to repair some major failure.") Seems the stakes are much higher these days. The voice we are hearing is no longer the savvy technician. Perhaps the IPCC is channeling Mother Nature. Back in the same time period, there was another TV ad featuring this symbol of our total world. It said, "Don't mess with Mother Nature." Can you hear it too?

Are They Talking to Me? originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:13:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Ladies and Gentleman: I am writing this post from the top deck of the HMS Titanic 2. This is the most powerful ship (of state) in the world. Unsinkable. Nothing can stop us. Get out of our way! Well, it is true we burn a lot of fuel on the Titanic and leave astern a big swath of liquid, solid and air waste, but that is what you do when you are so big and famous. Nothing can match us in size, power or speed.

The fuel use does concern me. This ship of ours was designed in a bygone era, when fuel was cheap, domestic and available. If we had to restrict our fuel use, all the famous Titanic features could be at risk. Our ship would go slower, our food not so fully cooked, our interior spaces not so comfortable. And there are no refueling ports in the mid-Atlantic.

Our prior captains have been saying that we cannot or need not change. Now a captain says we need to change but not very much. One executive officer, an Officer Gore, thought differently, but we did not want to change and he did not ever get promoted to captain. A Captain Bush is in command now while our crew makes some stops in some very strange places in order to show the locals how to live like us. That has not been so successful. Our crew members have been gone for quite a while. I hope they get back soon.

The more I think about it, the Titanic 2, the way it is, is not the ship I want to be on. I don't really need to go that fast, or leave so much trash in our wake. I don't like worrying where we will get our fuel all the time. Perhaps the Titanic 2 can be refitted, made more efficient and cleaner.

What's that? The captain says there are icebergs ahead. He says we are so fast and powerful he wants to rush by a few just to demonstrate our power. I certainly hope he knows what he is doing. I wouldn't want to do any irreparable damage done to this ship. There is no other ship quite like her in the world. I hope we can keep sailing on an improved Titanic 2 for a long, long time.

Best regards

On the (Virtual) Titanic 2 originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:57:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

RTG stands for Rubber Tired Gantry Crane - a portside device used to move and load the containers onto and off of ships. They don't get a lot of horizontal mileage but the crane racks up plenty of miles vertically. Raising a container is the equivalent of accelerating, increasing potential energy, and lowering the container is like braking, providing an opportunity for regeneration.

Railpower is a firm that I last knew made diesel-electric hybrid railroad yard locomotives. This is an equivalent and brilliant way to save fuel with relatively little changes. Both locomotives and RTG cranes have diesel electric drive systems and there is plenty of room and capacity for a decent sized battery pack.

How much is saved on the Hybrid RTG? Quiet a bit actually, in typical activity. As reported, the diesel/battery hybrid power plant achieved 74 percent fuel savings. An average of 70 percent of the energy lifting a container can be regenerated when lowering it. The hybrid's fuel burn rate during active typical duty cycles was 2.08 gals/hr. Conventional RTG cranes run at about 8 gals/hr.

This seems to be an excellent application of hybrid technology, peak oil or no peak oil.

Want a really high hybrid? Try an RTG crane originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:12:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

I have an analogy: What if we grew up in a family (a country) that gave you all the chocolate you wanted. Sweet (gasoline) or dark (diesel) chocolate at breakfast, lunch and dinner. What's more, all your favorite uncles and aunts (other countries) have nearly the same diet! What would happen?

Well, I supposed you would have a chocolate-centered life. We would take it for granted. Wouldn't even think it was out of the ordinary. But we would be fat with shorter endurance, higher upkeep (health care) costs, and we'd be just plain old bigger. There'd be congestion problems too. Cutting back on chocolate for our own health would seem a real hardship and unfair, even if we know it is for own good. After all, chocolate is all we know! And now the world is running out of chocolate. Soon all the best of it will be gone. Gimme, Gimme, Gimme more! Now!

So, too, the US vehicle fleet. It is big in numbers and size, requiring a lot of energy to do even the simplest of things. We cut back in trips or vehicle size only grudgingly. According to the US Energy Information Administration, petroleum use is still increasing but at a slower rate than previously.

It is time. The chocolate makers are currently so rich they are buying up our neighborhood. We are an addicted society. Some of us have started to use less chocolate by buying products that mix in other ingredients - like ethanol. We'll call that Flexible Foods. Others just use chocolate and more of other foods - like electricity. We call these Hybrid Foods. Some have gone cold turkey. They use Bikes and Public Transit. We call them Treehuggers.

I love chocolate. Had some yesterday. But I know I gotta cut back. Make it last a long time. Wanna leave some over for the kids, too.

Opinion: Like gasoline for chocolate originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:50:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Thanks to my international network of secret sources, I am happy to bring to ABG readers, from the Isle of Man, none other than the true mini of minicars, the Peel P50, recently re-discovered on British TV - don't miss it. As you may not believe in the Peel P50, check out a few more snaps after the break.

Thanks to the Spitfire aircraft of World War 2, the Brits seem to have a deep affection for three-wheeled vehicles - two in the front, one in the rear. Fuel wasn't cheap after World War II ended and in the early 1960s, folks on the damp Isle of Man, where fiberglass technology had some success, came up with this vehicle: enclosed, basic transportation that was highly economical. How economical? How about 100 mi/gallon!!

The P50 was 50 cc engine powered, lightweight, and was mass produced (in the dozens), but was frankly not quite up to 21st century safety standards. On the other hand, there is something here that is interesting. Let's say we put some structure around it, perhaps a roll bar and an airbag, give it bigger tires, a bigger, quieter engine, with a top speed of say, 100 kph (62 mph). How many millions of us could get to work, to the doctor, or (in)to a friend's house in a revised P50?

[Source: Flixxy]

Continue reading The Peel P50 - the one car you can drive ALL the way to work!

The Peel P50 - the one car you can drive ALL the way to work! originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:13:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Recently, I have found myself driving in stop/go/crawl traffic at least 4 days a week. Of course, this now-frequent activity coincides with the current 40 cent hike in gas prices we are suffering thru right now. My 8-year old ride drinks heavily in this style of driving and I don't like spending so much of my dwindling hours on this planet in such an unproductive yet necessary activity.

This whole feeling has been compounded by the latest Michael Klare article on energy in The Nation. Seems the author has put two and two together: The Dept of Energy has quietly shifted from "petroleum" to "liquids" as a word to describe the fuel we use for transportation. "Liquids" refers to other hydrocarbon fuels (propane, natural gas, etc.) as well as biofuels that we are slowly beginning to depend on just like petroleum. Changing this definition will mask the fact that petroleum production is just about peaked and older producing fields need to be replaced by new production before total production can reach the levels needed to meet increased world demand. This is not a good "scenario" for those that think the new Malibu will be the trendsetter for the US auto industry.

If the peak oil predictions are true in the short range - 5 years - then we need to drive a lot, lot, less and learn how to melt down a lot of SUVs and crossovers and replace them with vehicles that weigh about half as much and burn about half the energy currently used. That is essentially making the US national fleet about as energy comsumptive per person as the European fleet. Are we capable of such a transformation? Are we willing?

There is a kind of silver lining to this. Thanks to the weak dollar and our energy habits, more and more of the US is owned by the OPEC nations. Remember, we give them our dollars for petroleum. We burn the petrol up but they still have the dollars. They are so invested in us, they can't squeeze us till we hurt as it would also hurt them.

When I am stuck in traffic, I can't help feeling like the frog that Al Gore described in his movie - the one who can't sense slow change in his environment fast enough to get out and find safety. Is it getting warm in here?

Latest View from The Nation: Sobering originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:28:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

I have long had the image that that fuel pump hose filling our gas tanks is really more like a money vacuum. We pump in 10 gallons and make a $35 deposit into the oil cartel bank account. They then take some of that money and use some of it to explore for new oil. They use another part to live large in their parts of the world. Then they use still another part to buy properties in the US so that soon will be buying oil to drive to work at businesses owned by foreign oil company wealth.

There is nothing basically wrong with this. Believe me, if the tables were reversed, we would do exactly the same thing. It is perfectly legal under our form of government and justice. We are allowing and condoning it. In fact we are funding it, aren't we? Somehow I am beginning to feel like a gerbil in an exercise wheel. I can run like hell but I will never get anywhere..

This is AutoblogGreen but I feel it could just as well be AutoblogSmart. I think we have to squeeze every wasted drop of petroleum out of our day-to-day lives. The "p" in petroleum is for "precious" and we treat it like we will never run out of it. Stretch that fuel in your tank. Car pool, walk, bike, maintain you current vehicle (proper tire pressure? clean air filter?), take a freakin' bus or train, telecommute. If you don't, when oil hits $100 a barrel, who you gonna blame? Get a mirror.

We fill up the tank, we fill up their bank originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:03:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

According to Ed Peper (pronounced "Peeper") General Manager of Chevrolet Division of GM, Chevy is on quite a roll. Outside the US, the brand is growing by double digits in many markets, and the Chevy line is holding its own against competition in the US. While it is true that GM and Chevy are talking green every chance they get, one finds it hard to forget history. GM and Chevy are synonymous with the high energy lifestyle we are trying to wean ourselves from. GM invested in and out of the EV-1, preferring to destroy what cars they built rather than leave them in the hands of their users as evidence that, indeed, they once existed at all.

[Source: International Motor Press Association]

Gallery: 2008 Chevy Malibu Hybrid

Continue reading The 2008 Chevy Malibu Hybrid

The 2008 Chevy Malibu Hybrid originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:02:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The Volcano Theory originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:42:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.